He's not running for office. He's not part of a super PAC. He's not lobbying for or against any ballot measures.

But billionaire Thomas Peterffy is spending millions on television ads this election season with one cautionary message: Avoid socialism.

"I grew up in a socialist country and I have seen what that does to people. There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement," he says with a soft Hungarian accent in the ad. "The nation became poorer and poorer, and that's what I see happening here."

Peterffy told CNN he expects to spend $5-$10 million on the ad buy, depending on its effectiveness. The spot will run on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, and test markets in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Florida.

The one-minute spot, which began airing Wednesday and will continue through Election Day, has no mention of any specific politician or lawmaker. It's simply a plea for an end to what he sees as growing hostility to personal success - and to vote Republican.

"America's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy," he says in the commercial.

Peterffy was born in Budapest in 1944 during the deadly Soviet offensive that ended in the capture of Hungary's capital the following year. From then, the republic remained under communist control until it gained independence in 1989.

The new ad features images of Peterffy as a child in Hungary and the impoverished conditions in his native country.

"As a young boy, I was fantasizing about one day going to America, making a success of myself. The American Dream," he says.

Peterffy left his country and moved to New York in 1965, where-without knowing English–he got a computer programming job on Wall Street. He later purchased his own seat on the American Stock Exchange in 1977 and, fast forward a few years, found himself the creator of Interactive Brokers, one of the first electronic trading firms.

Forbes Magazine now estimates Peterffy, 68, has a net worth of $4.6 billion.

Peterffy is not alone in his fear of a socialist America. Some Republicans have launched vocal accusations against President Barack Obama for pushing what they call socialist policies. In part, they're referring to Obama's tax proposal that would ultimately raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of the country but maintain tax cuts for households making under $250,000 per year.

Obama and his re-election campaign argue they're not attacking success, rather they have a different viewpoint on how to create success. At the debate last week, Obama repeated his signature line, saying he wants to make sure everyone is "getting a fair share, everybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules."

Peterffy, however, says such policies lead to a "slippery slope."

"I’ve paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime, now I am being told that I am not contributing my fair share?" he said in an interview.

"When you trash the leaders of businesses, they stop working hard. They go on vacation," he continued. "I even see that within myself, I used to be proud of building Interactive Brokers. I would look forward to work each day. Now I’m being told I’m not doing my fair share."

According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the billionaire donated more than $60,000 to the Republican National Committee last year and contributed to Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, and House Speaker John Boehner.

Other billionaires, such David and Charles Koch, as well as George Soros, have played prominent roles this election, spending millions on ads for their respective candidates. But the titans maintain a low-profile, never appearing in the ads themselves.

Asked why Peterffy wanted to personally take out the ad buy–and star in the spot–he said he was concerned that Americans were unaware of the "downside" of a "less stratified society."

"If people want to go that way, I want them to go with eyes wide open, aware of all possible consequences," he added.

Here's the ad_________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P. J. O'Rourke

The spot will run on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, and test markets in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Florida.

CNN is a good choice, but CNBC and Bloomberg are not. Investors are not the people who need to see this; they understand economics. This needs to be on MSNBC, BET, and Univision. The people watching those channels have an understanding at the level of "free shit good"; they don't understand the connection between the vitality of the overall economy and their own well-being._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

Uh... are you advocating censorship? But let me guess if you agreed with his ideas, you wouldn't complain. That's a dangerous line of thought, boyo.

You misunderstand. I think it's a wonderful thing to live in a country where everyone from a humble Walmart shelf-stacker to a fabulously wealthy billionaire has the same opportunities to spend their billions on election campaigns.

I'm with the Crime Dog on this one. I too think that people should be limited on what they are allowed to do with their own money and time. I agree with the Crime Dog that government should limit who has the right to enter the political fray and just allow losers and the uneducated to participate. We sure as hell do not want successful people running things. Sheesh._________________Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused

Exactly. In fact, there should be a tax on all millionaires, to take the money they might use to express their opinions and distribute it evenly throughout the population so that everybody can express themselves and organize. This funding would be allocated fairly by the government, of course. After all, how else can we be sure everyone has freedom of speech?_________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I'm with the Crime Dog on this one. I too think that people should be limited on what they are allowed to do with their own money and time. I agree with the Crime Dog that government should limit who has the right to enter the political fray and just allow losers and the uneducated to participate. We sure as hell do not want successful people running things. Sheesh.

being a good business man, i.e. what's needed to make money, does not make one a good leader for a country.

see herman cain.

but the question remains. we are supposed to have a system where each person gets one vote. Clearly, this fellow, can influence votes beyond his one. ditto for lobbyists.

some of you seem to lament the money in politics in one breath, and not one to stop the problem in the other. This guy is fully allowed to participate in the system, but is it right that the simple fact that he has a shitload more money the me, that he can influence it more?

I'm with the Crime Dog on this one. I too think that people should be limited on what they are allowed to do with their own money and time. I agree with the Crime Dog that government should limit who has the right to enter the political fray and just allow losers and the uneducated to participate. We sure as hell do not want successful people running things. Sheesh.

being a good business man, i.e. what's needed to make money, does not make one a good leader for a country.

see herman cain.

but the question remains. we are supposed to have a system where each person gets one vote. Clearly, this fellow, can influence votes beyond his one. ditto for lobbyists.

some of you seem to lament the money in politics in one breath, and not one to stop the problem in the other. This guy is fully allowed to participate in the system, but is it right that the simple fact that he has a shitload more money the me, that he can influence it more?

Speaking of conflation, how is it that you do not understand the difference between "vote" and "communicate"? The whole point of free speech is to allow people to influence each other. If it's important to you to have a lot of influence, then make more money; it's like anything else: if you want it, you have to earn it. It's quite natural that someone who can't even manage to run their own life not have as much influence as someone who can.

Besides, there are limits to what money can buy. If the majority is truly suffering, their empty bellies are going to outweigh pretty much any bullshit anybody spews, no matter how loudly or often.

The improper influence isn't when somebody buys advertisements; it's when somebody puts money in a politican's pocket in exchange for a government grant or contract, or for legal favors such an easement or regulatory or tax change._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I too think that people should be limited on what they are allowed to do with their own money and time. I agree with the Crime Dog that government should limit who has the right to enter the political fray and just allow losers and the uneducated to participate. We sure as hell do not want successful people running things. Sheesh.

But you do think there should be limits on what people can do with their own money and time. You can't use your money to buy slaves, and you can't use your time to kill babies.

If you want the successful to run things, why not go one step further, and support an oligarchy, like in Russia?

I'm with the Crime Dog on this one. I too think that people should be limited on what they are allowed to do with their own money and time. I agree with the Crime Dog that government should limit who has the right to enter the political fray and just allow losers and the uneducated to participate. We sure as hell do not want successful people running things. Sheesh.

being a good business man, i.e. what's needed to make money, does not make one a good leader for a country.

see herman cain.

but the question remains. we are supposed to have a system where each person gets one vote. Clearly, this fellow, can influence votes beyond his one. ditto for lobbyists.

some of you seem to lament the money in politics in one breath, and not one to stop the problem in the other. This guy is fully allowed to participate in the system, but is it right that the simple fact that he has a shitload more money the me, that he can influence it more?

Speaking of conflation, how is it that you do not understand the difference between "vote" and "communicate"? The whole point of free speech is to allow people to influence each other. If it's important to you to have a lot of influence, then make more money; it's like anything else: if you want it, you have to earn it. It's quite natural that someone who can't even manage to run their own life not have as much influence as someone who can.

Besides, there are limits to what money can buy. If the majority is truly suffering, their empty bellies are going to outweigh pretty much any bullshit anybody spews, no matter how loudly or often.

The improper influence isn't when somebody buys advertisements; it's when somebody puts money in a politican's pocket in exchange for a government grant or contract, or for legal favors such an easement or regulatory or tax change.

The whole point of freedom of speech was so that people with no money and power could express themselves and be critical of those with all the money and power without going to jail. And one of the biggest components was a free press.

Is there no line of intellectual honesty you won't cross to argue with those you perceive as liberal?

The whole point of freedom of speech was so that people with no money and power could express themselves and be critical of those with all the money and power without going to jail.

Really? I thought it was based on the idea that expressing yourself was a god given right._________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P. J. O'Rourke